Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: PeteGCDB Date: Apr 8, 2010 2:47pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Some titles Id like to add

Thanks for this info Hektor. One thing I was wondering is are low budget exploitation films more likely to be PD than the big studio films? What do you think the overall ratio is on that?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: HektorT Date: Apr 8, 2010 3:08pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Some titles Id like to add

Don't have any idea on what the ratios might be. But I guess independent and low budget films are more likely to be PD because generally big studios try to protect their rights. If a small production company went out of business and nobody was managing things when a film was up for renewal it went PD. But there are also a lot of examples here of big studio films that are PD due to errors.

I think the year is more important. Prior to TV and the internet, copyright owners didn't think that "old technology" works (like silent films) had any value, so they often weren't renewed. Probably some people didn't renew B&W films after color came. TV changed that when they learned they could put their old films into syndication. Now internet has changed things again, and everything can go online for very cheap. I think after 1964 most people who made films tried to copyright them too, but there are more than one Roger Corman's around.





This post was modified by HektorT on 2010-04-08 22:08:39

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cosmico Date: Apr 8, 2010 3:15pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Some titles Id like to add

On the subject of low budgets and PD films, when Roger Corman (him again!) ran his own little company in the 50s/60s, Filmgroup, none of the movies were registered supposedly because it would cost money and film prints to do so. I recall a quote from him saying that instead of sending a print off to the LOC, he'd rather have it showing in a theatre or drive-in somewhere making money.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: HektorT Date: Apr 9, 2010 4:36am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Some titles Id like to add

LOL, I read that too somewhere. But I bet he is regretting it today! I actually called the copyright office once to ask if it was possible to borrow a print of a film. The response was really funny:

CO: Are you the owner?
Me: No
CO: Then no you can't see it!
Me: Who can see it?
CO: Only the owner!
Me: Well how can I see a copy of the film?
CO: I don't know, but only the owner can see this one!